The Other Side Speaks...

Well, more preachy than anything else. The word "crusade" was floating around in my mind...

CBS News: GameSpeak: Jack Thompson on Video Game Violence

For some context, Jack Thompson is "one of the most outspoken and visible critics of "violent entertainment." He has represented victims of "video game-related violence" and in 1992, the American Civil Liberties Union named him one of its "top ten" censors of the year."

So, if he isn't on the other side of the proverbial isle, the I don't know who is.

Now, lets get something straight: I do not agree with him in any way in many of his arguments, such as how gaming "is not a release of aggression. It is training for aggression."

Well, before being a rather avid gamer, I was suspended from Middle School three times for hitting another kid.

Zero since.

Of course, this is only one data point, and the rate of my maturity might be a contributing factor to my mellowed-outness, as well as a change in environment, but the numbers are still there.

Nor do I agree that the notable increase in school killings (from 17 and 16 in 2001 and 2002 to 48 in 2003) is because the Video Game Generation is coming of age.

Mainly because a study showed that the top two demographics for gaming are Male 18-35 (no duh) and Women 18-35. The video game generation grew up a long time ago. There may be other contributing factors in 2003 to the increase. Besides, just as my example above, we're dealing with a small data set here. Can't really make any claims that stand up to mathematical scrutinty.

And then there's the whole "Murder Simulators" thing. I mean, seriously, most of what you could possibly garner from a realistic (Tom Clancy, for example) FPS is that:

A: Head shots kill faster.

B: Automatic weapons are less accurate than rifles and pistols.

C: How to lead a target.

Part A is common sense. B is likewise. C might come in handy, I suppose, if you were to need it. But the things video games don't/can't cover are far more important.

Recoil. The biggest problem a person has when shooting a gun is that the gun packs a considerable kick, which throws off the aim of an amateur shooter. You can't include this in a game without, say, a light gun that shoots out a large blast of air with each shot, which still wouldn't be accurate.

There are others, but Recoil is the big one.

Still, he makes a few interesting, and good, points. Such as:

1: Despite a heavy emphasis on punishing the evil companies, he does recognize the need to punish the parents who knowingly lets their 13 year old kid play GTA.

2: He is right to nitpick the whole "most games are not heavily violent" argument, because the number of M rated games sold is more important than the number of M rated games made. Its not a lie, but a fact that's intentionally being relied upon too much. At least not a traditional lie.

3: Manhunt is the video game equivalent of a snuff film.

But he brings up Full Spectrum Warrior, a game that I will soon rent once I decide to get a blockbuster membership (look, I'll only use it for the games, liz, please don't hurt me).

Its a real time tactics strategy/tactics game. Not a FPS. Yes, it trains military thinking, but so what? He jumps on the Pandemic Studios bandwagon because FSW was made for the military, but was considered not realistic enough for training purposes, so it was turned into a commercial product.

But, ya know what? I've played many tactics/strategy games.

Starcraft. Warcraft I/II/III: The iconic RTS games, teaching resource management and the value of both overwhelming armies, smaller but more diverse squadrons, and how to effectively use skirmishers to negate an enemy's production capabilities.

Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain: A little known Mac game that teaches empire management, research, and several key aspects of war that are often overlooked by strategy games: Supply lines, the use of different vessels for different types of combat, and one of the key parts of battle: There is no combat without movement.

Ghost Recon: A Team Based, Tactical FPS that uses realism to teach, above all, patience and how a small force could defeat another, larger one if it can choose the ground on which to fight.

Fire Emblem: A Role Playing Tactics game that can teach the value of a small number of strong troops, how to hold a defensive line, and how to use a specific unit's strengths and weaknesses to good measure.

Advance Wars: A Turn-based Tactics game that uses resource management for troop construction, as well as having to make do with a set group of units and how to use the terrain to your expressed advantage.

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance: An amazingly deep Role Playing Tactics game that shows everything one needs to know about small-unit combat.

And he's ranting about Full Spectrum Warrior, which is just a RTT that just teaches caution and flanking, but just happens to be a modern game?

Oh, and the last three games?

Made in Japan, and all aimed at the little 'uns.

Sorry, but not only is he wrong, but he's using bad examples!

But, hey, don't take my word for it. After all, weren't all of the old politicians and demagogues totally right about how Dungeons and Dragons encourages people to be evil heathens?

Zod, this was longer than I entended.

I don't really mind it when people rail against FPS's. Its nothing new. But when they yell at a strategy game, it annoys me, because they are perhaps the best examples of how a game can actually improve one's intellect.